Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/3530/2017 on 12 April, 2022
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
WPSS No. 3530 of 2017
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Suresh Chandra Bhatt, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
Ms. Indu Sharma, learned Brief
Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Petitioner is aggrieved by rejection
of his claim for regularisation of his
services. In this writ petition, he has
challenged the order passed by the
Competent Authority, whereby his claim
was rejected. He has also sought a
direction to the respondents to consider
his case for regularisation.
According to petitioner, he was
appointed as a daily wager in Forest
Department in the year 1987 and he is
continuously serving as such ever since
then.
Petitioner had earlier filed WPSS
No. 1206 of 2013, which was disposed of
on 10.12.2013 with a direction to the
respondents to pay minimum of pay
scale, including grade pay, to the
petitioner w.e.f. 01.01.2006. A further
direction was issued to the respondents
to consider petitioner's case for
regularisation as per judgment rendered
by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Putti Lal.
Pursuant to the order passed by
Writ Court, Regularisation Committee
was constituted in terms of
Regularisation Rules, 2011.
Regularisation Committee did not
recommend petitioner's case on the
ground that petitioner is much junior and
sufficient number of Group 'D' posts are
not available for his regularisation.
In terms of the recommendation of
Regularisation Committee, petitioner's
claim was rejected, however, with the
stipulation that his claim shall be
considered as and when sufficient
number of vacancies are available on
Group 'D' post. Petitioner made a
representation to the Chief Conservator
of Forest, Human Resource Development
& Personnel Management, Dehradun
claiming continuity of service before
2001. The said representation too was
rejected on the ground that petitioner
had not served for 240 days between the
year 1993 to 2000.
In this writ petition, petitioner has
challenged the order passed by
Divisional Forest Officer as well as Chief
Conservator of Forest.
During the course of argument, it
was revealed that petitioner has attained
the age of superannuation in the year
2020. After attaining the age of
superannuation, direction, to regularise
services of the petitioners, cannot be
issued, as no one can be appointed as a
Government Servant after attaining the
age of 60 years.
In such view of the matter, the
reliefs as claimed in the writ petition, do
not survive.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that in similar circumstances,
daily wage employees have been paid
pensionary benefits, even though their
services were never regularised. He,
therefore, submits that in view of long
services rendered by petitioner, though
as daily wager, he is entitled to pension
and other benefits. He has placed
reliance on a judgment rendered by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Habib Khan vs. State of Uttarakhand &
others reported in (2019) 10 SCC 542.
Without expressing any opinion on
the claim, regarding retiral benefits
raised by petitioner, this Court thinks
that ends of justice would be met, if
petitioner is permitted to approach the
Competent Authority by making
representation.
Accordingly, the writ petition is
disposed of with liberty to petitioner to
approach Divisional Forest Officer,
Garhwal Forest Division by making
representation. If such representation is
made within three weeks from today,
Divisional Forest Officer shall look into
the matter and take appropriate
decision, as per law, as early as possible,
but not later than three months from the
date of presentation of representation
along with certified copy of this order.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
12.04.2022
Aswal
